Honestly, you single handedly have prevented me from jumping off a cliff if we take him. Seems like a NYR pick as you've said, but it does look like he's a very solid prospect. I'm hoping for Dobson or Wahlstrom personally (not likely), but I'd be ok with him if we went off the board. I'm drinking, but this post is meant in the most positive way possible.

Click to expand...

I think if Ranger fans saw him consistently, and can see the skill to go with the energy, and see how he performs in situations where he is a primary offensive driver (and not the responsible one in a combination with Hughes and Wahlstrom), they would love him very quickly.

Having said that, I really think there is a cluster of guys — with many of the names we’ve discussed — that is very close.

On a different note, NHL.com has some very solid interviews that probably give a more realistic view of how teams are looking at prospects and not how pundits and online observers do. The newest focuses on Bouchard vs. Dobson. But if you scroll down, you’ll see Hughes vs. Boqvist, and Denisenko vs. Kravtsov. Worth the reads:

Honestly, you single handedly have prevented me from jumping off a cliff if we take him. Seems like a NYR pick as you've said, but it does look like he's a very solid prospect. I'm hoping for Dobson or Wahlstrom personally (not likely), but I'd be ok with him if we went off the board. I'm drinking, but this post is meant in the most positive way possible.

Click to expand...

Farabee might end up being a better player than whoever we pick (if it's not him), but I think we need to grab a player with real elite upside. I definitely think he has a higher floor than anyone outside the Top-3 though, which is why I wouldn't be angry with the pick per se.

Farabee might end up being a better player than whoever we pick (if it's not him), but I think we need to grab a player with real elite upside. I definitely think he has a higher floor than anyone outside the Top-3 though, which is why I wouldn't be angry with the pick per se.

Click to expand...

For me, I think when you get to 9, I don’t know if there’s one guy who stands out as having what everyone would consider elite upside.

I think there are a lot of guys who project as very good, possibly elite if all the pieces come together. But individual preferences aside, I don’t know if it’s as clear cut as some might lead one to believe.

When you get past 2, there’s question marks with all of them. I’d say when you get past 5, there’s probably more optimism than reality in some of the hopes of finding elite — and understanding that a prospect could be a first line player, but still not quite truly elite.

In terms of “elite” talent, it’s probably in a different grouping in which players have bigger question marks, but potentially more growth potential.

That will be an interesting question for teams as they consider names like Kravtsov, Denisenko and others in comparison to your Farabees, Bouchards and Dobsons.

Farabee might end up being a better player than whoever we pick (if it's not him), but I think we need to grab a player with real elite upside. I definitely think he has a higher floor than anyone outside the Top-3 though, which is why I wouldn't be angry with the pick per se.

I would love that, provided we don't take Hayton. That would give us an absolute bounty to pick from at 9 and honestly, if 3 of our guys are available, we could always trade with the Isles to grab #11 + an extra 2nd rounder and STILL come away with a stud. If one of the top guys goes into a free fall, we may even be able to get more than that.

Farabee is a nice prospect, Lias, Chytil, Howden, Hajek are also nice prospects.

However should they make the NHL and develop well, that group winning future playoff series against Ehlers, Connor, Laine, or Matthews, Nylander, Marner, Rielly, I am not sure about that.

Click to expand...

We aren't looking at the entire picture though. Players are added outside of the draft. The Rangers have the #9 pick, not the #1 like Matthews or #2 Laine.

They also have a couple of late 1st's and (2) 2nd's to add good players. Perhaps they do what they did last year? Add a very good high floor prospect like Farabee (Andersson) and then swing for a couple of guys later in the 1st ala Chytil?

By the way, this is exactly what St Louis did in the Tarasenko draft. They took Schwartz first.

My son's birthday on Monday, a morale event with my team at work on Tuesday, packing on Wednesday, flying to Dallas on Thursday, Draft on Friday and Saturday, fly back home on Sunday. This week won't be a drag for me haha

Click to expand...

World Cup is kicking off today (as well as golf's U.S. Open). You should be able to survive until then...

We aren't looking at the entire picture though. Players are added outside of the draft. The Rangers have the #9 pick, not the #1 like Matthews or #2 Laine.

They also have a couple of late 1st's and (2) 2nd's to add good players. Perhaps they do what they did last year? Add a very good high floor prospect like Farabee (Andersson) and then swing for a couple of guys later in the 1st ala Chytil?

By the way, this is exactly what St Louis did in the Tarasenko draft. They took Schwartz first.

Click to expand...

How do you think the Rangers will try to close the gap between what their prospect pool is generating versus what the other teams have and will generate?

Rangers are not going to bottom out, so they are going to have to start signing expensive UFAs, and then maybe trading some of what they are current drafting or have for the next "star" player who wants out of wherever he is.

We've seen how that works out, they end up back where they are trying to figure out how a team that had character and expensive vet leadership could be eventually eliminated in the playoffs by teams who just plain had drafted higher tier talent.

The only way around that is to take the highest ceiling players outside of those top picks, probably for a couple straight drafts and have some of them work out even if it is a more difficult or longer process to get some of them to work out.

Farabee is a nice prospect, Lias, Chytil, Howden, Hajek are also nice prospects.

However should they make the NHL and develop well, that group winning future playoff series against Ehlers, Connor, Laine, or Matthews, Nylander, Marner, Rielly, I am not sure about that.

Click to expand...

Sometimes the challenge is to maintain some perspective concerning these things.

People probably would've said the same things about Ehler, Connor, Nylander, Marner and Reilly. When a player hits their higher level, we tend to assume that they were always seen that way and that's very rarely the case.

Likewise, when an higher-end talent makes it, we tend to ignore how many misses there were with very similar players.

People viewed Ryan McDonagh a certain way, before he was "Ryan McDonagh."

Derek Stepan was a much maligned second round pick at one time. Henrik Lundqvist was our second best goalie prospect. Etc.

It's challenging to get to far into the future because there's so many variables.

How do you think the Rangers will try to close the gap between what their prospect pool is generating versus what the other teams have and will generate?

Rangers are not going to bottom out, so they are going to have to start signing expensive UFAs, and then maybe trading some of what they are current drafting or have for the next "star" player who wants out of wherever he is.

We've seen how that works out, they end up back where they are trying to figure out how a team that had character and expensive vet leadership could be eventually eliminated in the playoffs by teams who just plain had drafted higher tier talent.

The only way around that is to take the highest ceiling players outside of those top picks, probably for a couple straight drafts and have some of them work out even if it is a more difficult or longer process to get some of them to work out.

Click to expand...

I disagree and we are discussing taking someone like Wahlstrom or Kotkaniemi like they are 100% sure-fire elite talent (which I believe many would disagree with). Loading up on talent allows organizations to make moves when a player becomes available. Every year players become available via trade or UFA. Get the player who they feel will fit this system and produce.

We are obviously speaking hypothetically but I don't think Farabee is that far off of #9. If we were talking someone like Miller I would agree but not seeing the huge gap between someone like Farabee and someone like Kotkaniemi.

In saying all of that, I am not even saying I would choose Farabee over someone like Wahlstrom, just that I wouldn't be up in arms if they took him. I'd still be excited for this team to add a player like him.

I disagree and we are discussing taking someone like Wahlstrom or Kotkaniemi like they are 100% sure-fire elite talent (which I believe many would disagree with). Loading up on talent allows organizations to make moves when a player becomes available. Every year players become available via trade or UFA. Get the player who they feel will fit this system and produce.

We are obviously speaking hypothetically but I don't think Farabee is that far off of #9. If we were talking someone like Miller I would agree but not seeing the huge gap between someone like Farabee and someone like Kotkaniemi.

In saying all of that, I am not even saying I would choose Farabee over someone like Wahlstrom, just that I wouldn't be up in arms if they took him. I'd still be excited for this team to add a player like him.

Click to expand...

Do you think Farabee has a higher potential ceiling than Wahlstrom or Kotkaniemi?

The Rangers would be taking their favorite, a safer prospect they like rather than building something that eventually could maybe compete with those teams who are taking a Wahlstrom or Kotkaniemi over a Farabee.

Sure the higher ceiling player could bust, so could the safer one but if both reach their potential the higher ceiling prospect is going to be way more valuable than the safer middle 6 forward. Rangers need more gamble if they are ever going to compete with the teams who were able to draft early and take both safe and super high ceiling.

Do you think Farabee has a higher potential ceiling than Wahlstrom or Kotkaniemi?

The Rangers would be taking their favorite, a safer prospect they like rather than building something that eventually could maybe compete with those teams who are taking a Wahlstrom or Kotkaniemi over a Farabee.

Sure the higher ceiling player could bust, so could the safer one but if both reach their potential the higher ceiling prospect is going to be way more valuable than the safer middle 6 forward. Rangers need more gamble if they are ever going to compete with the teams who were able to draft early and take both safe and super high ceiling.

Click to expand...

We are assuming the percentages of each player reaching their 'potential' is the same. We are also assuming we all agree on said 'potential'.